From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Thu Jan 09 2003 - 20:28:12 MST
Brett writes
> > Yes, but in fairness to the anti-abortionists, it should
> > be noted that this example is hypothetical.
> > I don't ever remembering seeing any of them use this
> > wording, and therefore reveal themselves as suffering this
> > problem.
>
> Ok, but *this one* comes from the leader of government business in
> the lower house. Tony Abbott MP. Looks pretty similar to me.
>
> "I believe (sic) that life (sic) begins at conception. I believe that any
> other points we might choose are essentially arbitrary and uncertain.
> And I believe that this is a view founded not in religion, not in faith,
> but on the logic of the matter. ....
>
> "Let me make this very clear: even if destroying embryos to harvest
> their stem cells could create the medical miracles, which are now
> so commonly claimed, I would be against it, because there are some
> things that we cannot do, no matter how good the cause."
But wouldn't it have meant exactly the same thing if
he had said, "My working hypothesis is that human existence
begins at conception, and I contend that this is a view
founded not in religion, not in faith, but on logic."
and had gone on to say
"I am against snuffing out human existence in principle."
It seems to me that he would be saying exactly the same
thing, no?
It think that we have an *ontological* dispute in
that he considers human beings to be absent/present
over tiny changes in the physical situation, and tiny
changes in t. I have derided this for years as "lack
of philosophical continuity", i.e., when one's values
jump suddenly over tiny domains of physical changes.
> They start from a position of faith or belief assume
> that as an axiom and reason from there.
But I know people "on our side" who start from the
axiom "suffering is bad" (that's me!) and "the wishes
of sentients are not to be denied" (that's Rafal).
(Eternal Truth No. 2 "Every sentence must be further
modified" naturally applying to both these phrases.)
Now yes, in general, I'm with you and I *do* have a
problem with axiomatic schemes. I think that they stem
from math-envy. The people who engage in this needed
to have gone through inoculation at the hands of
the Randians or the Scientologists to get that
out of their heads.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:35:51 MST